Cycling Improvements
Strategies to Make Cycling Convenient, Safe and Pleasant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
March 8, 2007
This chapter describes ways
of improving cycling conditions and encouraging cycling activity.
Description
There are many specific ways to improve bicycle transportation (ADONIS, 1998; Litman, et al., 2000). These include:
·
Improved paths and bikelanes.
·
Correcting specific roadway hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes,
etc.).
·
Improved road, road shoulder and path Management
and Maintenance.
·
Improved Bike Parking.
·
Develop a more Connected street network and
clustered development (New Urbanism).
·
Traffic Calming, Speed
Reductions, Vehicle Restrictions, and Road Space Reallocation.
·
Safety education, law enforcement and encouragement
programs.
·
Integration with transit (Bike/Transit Integration
and Transit Oriented Development).
·
Create a Multi-Modal Access Guide, which
includes maps and other information on how to cycle to a particular
destination.
·
Provide bicycle rental and lending services at many locations.
·
Address Security Concerns of cyclists.
Cyclists use a variety of facilities, as summarized in Table 1. Improving these facilities tends to improving cycling conditions and increase cycling activity. A significant amount of cycling occurs on roads, highway shoulders and sidewalks that have no special designation or design features for cycling. It is therefore important to design, maintain and manage all of these facilities to accommodate cycling. For example, as much as possible roadways should have minimal potholes and cracks that can catch a bicycle tire, particularly along the right lane, and shoulders should be paved and maintained in good condition.
Table 1 Types of Bicycle Facilities
Type
|
Description |
|
Paths and trails (Type I) |
Various types of paths and
trails separated from roadways. These can be built along highways and
railroad rights of way, through parks, and other locations where a linear
corridor exists. |
|
Bike lanes (Type II) |
Special road lanes for use by cyclists. In some cases this involves removing curb parking, which tends to increase cyclist comfort and safety. |
|
Bike routes (Type III) |
Roadways designated as
being extra suitable for cycling. |
|
Bicycle boulevards |
City streets selected for
and designed with features to facilitate cycling and discourage excess motor
vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. |
|
Designated shared streets |
Roadways (particularly city
streets) with markings to indicate that cyclists should ride in the traffic
lane. |
|
General roadways |
A significant amount of
cycling occurs on roadways that have no special designation or design
features. |
|
Highway shoulders |
Highway shoulders, both
paved and unpaved, are often used for cycling. |
|
Sidewalks |
Sidewalks are used by some
cyclists, particularly by children and inexperienced adults, and along busy
roadways that lack provisions for cycling. |
|
These include bike racks,
storage lockers, and shower/changing facilities. |
This table describes various types of cycling facilities, including some that lack special designation or features, which should still be designed, maintained and managed to safely accommodate bicycles.
Figure 1 &
|
|
|
|
Before bikelane. (Photo curtsey of John Luton) |
After bikelane. |
How it is Implemented
Cycling improvements are usually implemented by local governments, sometimes with funding and technical support of regional or state/provincial transportation agencies. It usually begins with Nonmotorized Planning to identify problems and prioritize projects (Litman, et al., 2000). Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants.
Travel Impacts
Bicycling can substitute directly for automobile trips. Communities that improve cycling conditions often experience significant increases in bicycle travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (PBQD, 2000). Each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075 percent, all else being equal (Nelson and Allen, 1997). Dill and Carr (2003) find that for U.S. cities with more than 250,000 population, each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile is associated with a roughly one percentage point increase in bicycle commute mode share. Rietveld and Daniel (2004) find that bicycle transportation increases in cities where cycling is relatively easier (fewer hindrances along cycling routes) and safer, and as cycling is faster and cheaper relative to automobile travel.
Although only about 1% of total
Table 2 Mode
|
|
Car |
Transit |
Cycling |
Walking |
Other |
|
|
39% |
13% |
9% |
31% |
8% |
|
|
74% |
14% |
1% |
10% |
1% |
|
|
42% |
14% |
20% |
21% |
3% |
|
|
54% |
12% |
4% |
30% |
0% |
|
|
52% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
0% |
|
|
44% |
8% |
27% |
19% |
1% |
|
|
36% |
11% |
10% |
39% |
4% |
|
|
38% |
20% |
10% |
29% |
3% |
|
|
62% |
14% |
8% |
12% |
4% |
|
|
84% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
2% |
The amount of walking and cycling varies significantly from one city to another.
Many communities have significant latent demand for bicycle transport. That is, people would bicycle more frequently if they had suitable facilities and resources (Komanoff and Roelofs, 1993). A U.S. survey found that 17% of adults claim they would sometimes bicycle commute if secure storage and changing facilities were available, 18% would if employers offered financial incentives, and 20% would if they had safer cycling facilities (Bicycling, 1991). The table below summarizes a Canadian public survey indicating high levels of interest in cycling and walking.
Table 3 Active
Transportation Survey Findings
(Environics, 1998)
|
|
Cycle |
Walk |
|
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. |
48% |
85% |
|
Currently use this mode for
transportation. |
24% |
58% |
|
Would like to use this mode
more frequently. |
66% |
80% |
|
Would cycle to work if
there “were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less
than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace.” |
70% |
NA |
|
Support for additional
government spending on bicycling facilities. |
82% |
NA |
Some studies conclude that cycling improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Comsis, 1993; Apogee, 1994), but other studies indicate much higher potential mode shifts (Hillman, 1998; ADONIS, 1999; TravelSmart). Potential travel impacts are greater if cycling is Integrated with Transit, and with Smart Growth development practices that reduce travel requirements, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods.
Travel surveys and traffic counts usually under-record nonmotorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links (BTS, 2000). For example, a “bike-bus-bike” trip is often classified as “transit”, even if more distance is traveled by cycling. One study found that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld, 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey).
In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for cycling, evaluate cycling conditions and predict the effects of cycling improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
Table 4 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Bicycle access affects
public transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Benefits And Costs
Cycling can provide a number of benefits and costs, as discussed below (for more information see the Bicyclepedia at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost, and Litman, 1999).
Mobility Benefits (Evaluating Transportation Choice)
Improved
cycling conditions increase travel choice and mobility, which particularly
benefits non-drivers. Cycling is often one of the most Affordable
transportation options. People who are transportation disadvantaged often rely
heavily on nonmotorized transportation, for trips made entirely by cycling and
to access transit. Bicycle transportation can help provide Basic
Mobility.
TDM Benefits
Shifts
from driving to nonmotorized modes can congestion reduction, road and parking
facility savings, consumer savings, environmental protection and increase
community livability (Litman, 1999; Buis, 2000). Nonmotorized transportation
supports other alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing), and Smart Growth land use objectives, including higher
density, mixed-use development to increase access, and reduce per capita
pavement.
Safety and Health Impacts
Cycling
has a relatively high casualty rate per mile of travel, but this is offset by
reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that cyclists tend to travel
less overall than motorists. International research suggests that shifts to
nonmotorized transport result in overall increases in road safety. For example,
the
Cycling
can provide significant aerobic fitness health benefits, which more than
offsets the increased crash risk (Roberts, et al., 1996; Frank and Engelke,
2000). Danish bicycle commuters have a 40% reduction in mortality compared with
people who do not cycle to work, which suggests that the incremental risks of
bicycle transportation are far outweighed by health benefits, at least for
experienced adult cyclists riding in a bicycle-friendly community (Andersen, et
al, 2000). Cyclists also tend to have great looking legs.
Economic Development Benefits
To
the degree that cycling improvements improve Community Livability and
reduce automobile costs, they can increase property values and improve Economic Development. In a survey of business owners in an
urban retail district, Drennen (2003) found that 65% consider arterial bike
lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that
consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their
area.
Recreation Benefits
Many
people enjoy cycling and the healthy exercise it provides. Some people argue
that transportation funding should not be spent on recreational activities,
such as walking and cycling facilities, yet a significant portion of motor
vehicle travel is for recreation. It makes no sense to refuse funding for a
path or bikelane, yet fund roadway capacity so motorists can drive to a healthclub
where they pedal a stationary bike. This suggests that both transportation and
recreational funding can be devoted to cycling improvements.
Costs
Costs
are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements. A
typical bike lane costs $52,000 per mile, or 30˘ per 2.1 mile trip bicycle trip
if used by 80 cyclists a day, while a typical new sidewalk is estimated to cost
12˘ per trip (Comsis, 1993). High-quality bike racks and lockers typically cost
$100-500 per bike. Some nonmotorized transportation improvements, such as
traffic calming, may reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds.
Table 5 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides affordable
mobility. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choices. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces automobile use and
provides health benefits. |
|
Environmental Impacts |
3 |
Reduces automobile use,
particularly high-polluting short trips. |
|
Land Use Impacts |
3 |
Supports higher-density
development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces motor vehicle
traffic and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Equity Impacts
Since nearly everybody walks, and many people cycle, nonmotorized transportation improvements can benefit nearly everybody, although some people benefit more than others from a particular policy or project.
Improving conditions for nonmotorized travel often require public resources (money and land devoted to sidewalks, paths and bikelanes), the public cost per trip is usually less than that of automobile travel (money and land devoted to roads and parking facilities), so such improvements can be considered to increase horizontal equity.
Litman (1998) describes how people who drive less than average overpay their share of local transportation expenditures, since their local taxes fund roadway expenses that are primarily needed for the sake of automobile traffic, so increased funding for nonmotorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by nonmotorized improvements. Cycling can help provide Basic Mobility.
Table 6 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |